Horst at it again.

You have to hand it to Horst Dornbusch. He's not easily discouraged. An endless supply of historical fantasy flows from his pen.

This is an excerpt from his article on Altbier:

"Historically, the modern Altbier evolved from northern German ales that were typical for the region during the Middle Ages. These were strong, well-hopped brews with names like Broyhan and Keutebier, which often contained portions of wheat malt, perhaps as much as 40%."
"Oxford Companion to Beer", page 37.

So Broyhan and Keute were strong and heavily hopped. Let's see if actual evidence confirms that.

Broyhan

Let's start with a quote from one of my favourite books (and one the bloke who wrote the "Oxford Companion to Beer" article on Berliner Weisse should have read:

"In Hanover, the very weakly-hopped, sweet Broyhan Bier, using 20% wheat malt, has been brewed for centuries."
"Die Herstellung Obergähriger Biere" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 1902, page 65.

That's fairly specific. Not heavily hopped.

Her's a quote from another weighty scientific tome:

"1. Low-alcohol, light beers filled as Ausstossbier or bottled with Kräusen which are mostly free from bacteria and rich in CO2. Examples: Lübbener, Werder'sches, Cölner, Bremer, Hamburger, Grätzer, Münchener Weissbier etc.

2. Beers with similar attributes to those just named, but with a higher lactic acid content. Examples: Berliner Weissbier, Broyhan, Calenburger Weissbier, Lichtenhainer, Gose-Bier."
"Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte in der Lehre von den Gährungs-Organismen" by Professor Dr. Alfred Koch, 1896, pages 160-161.

That defines Broyhan as a low-alcohol beer wiuth a high lactic acid content.

"Broyhan is a dark, lightly hopped, poorly attenuated top-fermenting beer brewed mostly in the province Hannover. It is made from barley malt with the addition of up to 20% wheat malt. "
"Encyklopädisches Handbuch der technischen Chemie, Volume 4, Part 1", 1915, page 30. My translation.

Do you see a theme here? Lightly-hopped, not strong.

This text is a little older:

"To brew Broyhahn, after Hermstädt.

This beer is named after its creator, Cord Broyhahn, who first brewed it in 1526 in the brewhouse of Hans von Sode in Leinstrasse, Hannover. The genuine Broyhahn is very pale, similar in colour to young white wine, has a winey aroma and a pleasant sweetish yet acidic taste. Broyhahn differs from other white beers chiefly in that it is brewed from pure barley malt without the addition of wheat malt or hops.

For a brew of 2000 Berlin Quarts [1 Berlin quart = 1.14053 litres] are needed 26 Berlin scheffels (1560 pounds) of pale barley malt, air malt or Welkmalz (?) . The grist has 800 Berlin Quarts at 30º R [37.5º C] poured over it and it is worked through until all the malt is mixed well with the water and no more lumps can be seen. Then the whole is left to rest in the covered tun for half an hour. A second watering follows with 1700 Quart boiling water; it is well mashed for an hour and then the mash is left in the covered tun for a further hour.

After the wort has been drawn off, it is gently boiled in the previously cleaned copper until it evaporates down to 2000 Quarts and then allowed to cool down to 14º [17.5º C] R in the coolship.

In the fermenting vessel the wort is finally inoculated with 6 Berlin Quarts of good yeast, preferably taken from good white beer, well mixed and immediately brought into the barrels in the cellar to ferment out, which takes about 36 to 40 hours, after which the barrels must be tightly bunged. This Broyhahn keeps about 14 days in summer, and in winter 24 days in cool storage, without becoming sour.

The spent grain is once again infused with 500 Quarts of boiling water, mixed well, so that after half an hour the wort can be drawn off, which is inoculated with yeast and processed into Kovent. "
Source: "Grundsaetze der Bierbrauerei nach den neuesten technisch-chemischen Entdeckungen" by Christian Heinrich Schmidt, 1853, pages 444-445.

Look - no hops at all in that version.

Still not convinced that Broyhan wasn't strong? Here are some 19th century analyses:

Year	Brewer	Country	Beer	Style	Acidity	FG	OG	ABV	atten-uation
1850	Unknown, Halberstadt	Germany	Halberstädter Breyhan	Breyhan	1.29	1012.69	1034.67	2.84	62.59%
1884	Hannover, Städtisch	Germany	Einfacher Broyhan	Broyhan	0.158	1022.54	1031.43	1.03	27.67%
1884	Hannover, Städtisch	Germany	Doppelter Broyhan	Broyhan	0.06	1043.60	1053.37	1.20	17.55%
Sources:
“Archive der Pharmacie”, 1855, pages 216-217
Wahl & Henius, pages 823-830

One last point about Broyhan: it dates from the 1500's. That's not the Middle Ages.



Keute

Let's move on to Keut. It's a type of beer that was brewed in parts of the west of Germany, Holland and Belgium. This one does date back to the Middle Ages. So far back, in fact, that it's origins were before the use of hops in the area. Though later small quantites were added to it.

The only current example of the style, Jopen Koyt, is a gruit beer. Heavily hopped? Don't make me laugh.

This is a description of how to brew the German version:

"WHAT IS Keut? WHAT IS Altbier?
Keut, a Münsterland beer, was brewed according to a specific method. It used to be the house drink of the citizens. An old recipe from the period around 1600 reports on the production of Keut:

"To make Koet. Pour 7 cups of malt, 4 buckets of water and a good hand-full of wheat flour the previous evening into a kettle, where it is to be boiled. The next day boil it for 4 hours so that it boils down to about 1 bucket and becomes somewhat thick, but it must be stirred well so that it does not burn. Then it is poured into a basket with straw, over which a coarse linen cloth has been secured, so that it runs off clear. Then another four buckets of water and a handful of hops are boiled briefly, and poured through the same basket; it is then left to stand until it becomes lukewarm. Then add a good dose of yeast (1/4 litre) to the Koet, stir as with beer and cover it. The next morning, remove the yeast and fill into pitchers. Leave open for two days, then seal, place in each pitcher a »beschaten nagel« and a little white sugar, seal tightly and place in sand. "

So you don't imagine that »beschaten nagel« is a rusty nail, it should be pointed out that Krumbholtz explains this expression in his volume "Trade of the city of Munster," as "probably clove or nutmeg". "Pinkus Müller. Der Singende Bierbrauer in Münster", by Walter Werland, 1966, page 53.

I should be thankful for small mercies. At least Horst seems to have realised Broyhan and Mumme (two beers which could hardly be more dissimilar) aren't the same thing. He does appear to still throw around the names of old German styles randomly, making them whatever he thinks they should be.

Funny that Adambier doesn't get a mention in his article. That really was a strong, heavily-hopped type of Altbier.

Oxford Companion to Beer page 37

Anyone know what article is on that page?

It contains this gem:

"These were strong, well-hopped brews with names like Broyhan and Keutebier . . . "

Yeah, right. That's the Broyhan that was the forerunner of Berliner Weisse, a type of beer noted for its hoppiness and strength. Keute was originally an unhopped type of beer.

My guess it's something written by Horst. He is, after all, the man who claimed Mumme and Broyhan were the same thing.

Horst again

Yes, they also let Horst Dornbusch write the article on Old Ale in the "Oxford Companion to Beer". It's not quite as bad as his one on the shilling system. There are even a couple of sentences without mistakes.

Here's the text:

"old ales, a British ale style that has evolved greatly over the past 2 centuries. Traditionally, these beers were also known as stock ales or strong ales as they emerged to some prominence in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. At first, little separated them from barley wines, and they were big beers. Old ales were normally fermented only from the first, high-gravity runnings of the mash, often in a parti-gyle brewing process. The second runnings were then fermented as brown ales or other medium-strength beers; sometimes a third running was even performed, yielding small beers of little strength and body. Old ales were invariably higher alcohol beers of perhaps 6% to 7% alcohol by volume (ABV). But the alcohol level was initially kept in check by mashing techniques that favored unfermentable sugars in the high-gravity wort. The beer was left with notable residual sweetness rather than higher levels of alcohol. The original old ales were literally old by beer standards of the day, matured for months and often years in wooden casks. Long aging in wood allowed the ale to mellow in bitterness but also to acquire some flavour from the raw wood, a slightly stale taste from oxidation, and a dash of sourness from wild yeasts, particularly Brettanomyces, and lactic acid bacteria with which the brew would invariably come into contact. Old ales received very little to no aroma hops; hop flavor and aroma, even if they survived the long aging, would not have been compatible with the beer's other flavors. The finished beer would have had low, natural effervescence, a deep tawny color, and a substantial mouthfeel. A long, slow secondary fermentation would sometimes eventually reduce the 'unfermentable" sugars, leaving the beer with a dry finish. Old ales were often blended with young "running ales," thereby conferring to the young beer some of the richer properties of the older fraction. The British brewery Greene King still produces its excellent Strong Suffolk (also known as Olde Suffolk) by this method.

Over time, like most British beer styles, the beers referred to as "old ales" have changed substantially. They have kept the original dark color range, and most show a tendency to rich fruitiness, but in all but a few examples, the touch of wild or lactic character is gone. Some are simply slightly beefed-up mild ales, barely touching 5% ABV. Wood aging is rare, and aging itself seems optional, although some strong versions to age very well indeed. In the past decade or so, however, craft brewers have sought to bring back types of old ale somewhat closer to those of the mid-1800s, and many of these are very characterful and show good aging potential."

"Old ales were normally fermented only from the first, high-gravity runnings of the mash" Interesting claim that one. And easy enough to check up. Though notice how the whole article is very vague about time. Does he mean late 18th/early 19th century? The 19th century in general? To be on the safe side, let's check several years.

Here's a nice Whitbread example from 1837:

It shows the gyles and how they were mixed to create two beers: X (a Mild Ale) and KXXX (a Keeping or Stock Ale). There were three worts:

1st 39.5 lbs/barrel (1109º)
2nd 29.8 lbs/barrel (1083º)
3rd 22.6 lbs/barrel (1063º)

KXXX was blended from 48 barrels of the first wort and 31 of the second. X had 7 barrels of the first wort, 23 of the second and 38 of the third.  KXXX had an OG of 35.7 lbs/barrel (1099º) and X 26.6 lbs/barrel (1074º).

Not only wasn't the Keeping Ale all first runnings, some of all three runnings were in the weaker Mild Ale. Not much like Horst describes, is it?

Not convinced about the gyling? Here's another example, from the other end of the 19th century. It's a Barclay Perkins KKK from 1891:

This one is even simpler, having been brewed entire gyle. Three worts of 1086, 1085 and 1037 were blended to get an OG of 1085.

Here's another example from closer to the middle of the century. It's a Truman KXXX from 1860:

This was also brewed entire gyle. There were 4 worts:

1st wort 42.3 lbs/barrel (1117º)
2nd wort 35.5 lbs/barrel (1098º)
3rd wort 23 lbs/barrel (1064º)
4th wort 20 lbs/barrel (1055º)
combined: 32.3 lbs/barrel (1089º)

Still not convinced the gyling method described in the article is fantasy? Here's yet another example, again from Whitbread, but this time the year is 1875. We've seen a standard-strength Mild parti-gyled with a strong Keeping Ale and we've seen two entire gyle Keeping Ales. Here's a third variation: two Keeping Ales parti-gyled with each other:

This time there were 2 worts:


1st wort 38.8 lbs/barrel (1107º)
2nd wort 18.9 lbs/barrel (1052º)

which were blended to make KK at 26.4 lbs/barrel (1073º) and KKK at 29.4 lbs/barrel (1081º).


I could go on. I have hundreds of examples from several different breweries spanning the years 1830 to 1950. None of them were brewed in the way Horst describes.


"Old ales were invariably higher alcohol beers of perhaps 6% to 7% alcohol by volume (ABV)."  Old ales 6 to 7% ABV in the 19th century? Total bollocks. The weaker X Ale in my first example above would have been that strong. The KXXX was probably more like 9% ABV. He's just taken modern strengths and assumed beers were always like that. 6% ABV was normal strength in the 19th century. That's how strong a bottom of the range Mild or a standard Porter were.

Hang on a minute. I've a set of Old Ale analyses from the British Medical Journal. Let's see how strong those were:

Old Ales
Year	Brewer	Beer	Acidity	FG	OG	ABV	App. Attenuation
1870	Allsopp	Old Burton Ale (brewed March 1869)	0.32	1040.38	1121.63	10.64	66.80%
1870	Allsopp	Old Burton Ale	0.25	1030.11	1111.45	10.69	72.98%
1870	Bass	Barley Wine	0.23	1032.31	1114.78	10.84	71.85%
1870	Roy	Scotch Ale	0.20	1037.84	1111.46	9.61	66.05%
1870	Truman	Old Ale (KXXX)	0.16	1020.81	1084.95	8.39	75.50%
1870	Bass	Burton Ale	0.18	1014.91	1091.47	10.10	83.70%
1870	Allsopp	Burton Ale	0.56	1008.61	1086.4	10.30	90.03%
1870	Butler	Kennet Ale	0.36	1012.31	1090.3	10.31	86.37%
1870	Charrington	Old Ale	0.26	1017.08	1089.16	9.48	80.84%
1870	Charrington	Old Ale	0.28	1013.9	1073.27	7.78	81.03%
1870	Elliott, Watney & Co.	Old Ale	0.28	1007.93	1072.81	8.55	89.11%
Source:
British Medical Journal 1870, vol. 1, 1870, page 68.

Look at that - the weakest is almost 8% ABV.

"The second runnings were then fermented as brown ales" Second runnings fermented as Brown Ales? In the 19th century? That shows just how clueless he is. Brown Ale didn't exist in the 19th century. I thought everyone knew that. It died out at the end of the 18th century when everyone sussed out how much cheaper it was to brew with pale malt. And, as the brewing records above have shown, when beers were parti-gyled, the weaker beer almost always contained some of the strongest wort. There were several reasons for doing that. First and foremost: hitting the target gravity. Second: a beer from only later weak worts is thin and crap. You wanted some of the good stuff in every beer.

Let's move on to some other points.

"acquire some flavor from the raw wood" British brewers went to great lengths to stop this happeneing. They deliberately made their barrels from types of oak that im[parted little flavour. Barrels and vats were constantly re-used. Any wood flavour would have quickly disappeared. They also treated new casks to remove any wood taint*.

"a deep tawny color"; "They have kept the original dark color range" I think he's making a big assumption here, that Old Ales were dark in the 19th century. They weren't. Or at least not until the very end. Like pretty much all British beers except Porter and Stout, Old Ales were brewed from 100% pale malt (and maybe some sugar) between 1800 and around 1890. They were pale in colour. (My source: countless brewing records.)

"Some are simply slightly beefed-up mild ales, barely touching 5% ABV." That's what Old Ales always were. Old Ale and Mild Ale were essentially the same thing. The difference was that one was sold young and the other aged. The recipes were identical, except for the level of hopping (Keeping Ales had more, obviously). A KK Keeping Ale had the same gravity as an XX Mild Ale. The Keeping Ales were brewed in the higher end of the gravity range - KK, KKK and KKKK. Mild Ales tended to be in the lower ranges, X and XX, but there were XXX and XXXX Mild Ales.

What are some modern Old Ales in the 4 to 5% ABV range? For the same reason that Mild is now 3% rather 6% or 7% ABV. Because British beer strengths aren't much more than 50% of what they were 150 years ago. Gravities of all beers have declined in steps: Boer War, WW I, 1931 tax increase, WW II. Each chipped away at beer strengths. Only a very small number of specialist beers - Colne Spring Ale, Bass No. 1, Barclays/Courage Russian Stout - remained at pre-WW I strengths.

He is right about the Brettanomyces. That's what made Old Ale old - a long, secondary fermentation with Brettanomyces that gave the beer the "aged" flavour. Brettanomyces can break down complex sugars that normal yeast can't. That explains some of the very high degrees of attenuation in the table above.

Overall, not that bad an article by Horst's standards. Only half a dozen serious errors.



* I know that I've posted a section of a brewing manual discusses seasoning casks.  Just can't find it. If you can find it, I'd be grateful.

Classic Horst

"They've let Horst Dornbusch write the articles on Scottish beer." How my heart sank when I read those words. Ace fantasist Horst being allowed to write about Scottish beer in the "Oxford Companion to Beer".

There have been volumes of rubbish written about Scottish beer. Fantasies have become established as fact. Articles like this one aren't going to help:

"shilling system is not only a traditional, pre-decimal, British currency denomination but also an old-style, uniquely Scottish measure for a beers strength. In the 19th century, it referred to the pre-tax price of a British barrel (36 UK gal, about 43-2 US gal or 164 1) or a hogshead (54 UK gal, about 64.8 US gal) of ale. In those days, Scottish ales were brewed to a wide range of differing strengths, from a very weak gravity of perhaps 7.5 P (OG 1.030) to a whopping gravity of perhaps 32.5 P (OG 1.130). The stronger the brew, the more it cost, from roughly 60 to 160 shillings. The classic way of making Scottish ales is by the parti-gyle method, which involves boiling and fermenting the early, heavier runnings and the later, weaker runnings of the same mash separately. See parti-gyle. Parti-gyle beers are often blended from two consecutive batches and sometimes from different-strength runnings. The strongest finished ales were often called Scotch ales or Wee Heavy ales; the mid-range brews were called Export ales and the weaker ones Scottish ales or Two-Penny ales. This nomenclature, however, was never applied consistently, and the technical dividing lines that separate the various shillings ratings have always been somewhat fluid. A typical 60-shilling Two-Penny may have a gravity of 7.5°Plato 8.75 Plato (1.030 1.035); a 70-shilling Export 8.75 P-10°P (1.035-1.040); an 80-shilling Export 10°P-13.75°P (1.040-1.055); a 90-shilling Wee Heavy 13-75°P-19-25ºP (1.055-1.075); and a 140-shilling outlier 23.75°P 32.5°P (1.095 1.130). Shilling ratings are sometimes denoted by the old currency symbol "/-," with "80-shilling" becoming"80/-."The modern drinker, when these antiquated terms are used, simply knows to expect a beer of "normal" strength (4.5% to 5-5% alcohol by volume) to be designated "80 shillings" and something lighter below this number and something heavier above it."

Let's attack it point by point. His biggest mistake: confusing the shilling Ales of the 19th century with the shilling Pale Ales of the 20th. Yes they were 60/- to 140/- or even 160/- Ales. But these were the thick sweet type of Ales than resembled Burton Ale.

The number of shillings refers to the price per hogshead, not a barrel. And apparently Scottish hogsheads were generally larger than English ones, typical holding 63 gallons. It wasn't the pre-tax price, it was the wholesale price. 1830 to 1880, it couldn't have been the pre-tax price because there was no tax on beer. The tax was on malt and hops.

The weakest shilling Ale (60/- according to Horst) only 1030º.? No it wasn't. The Table Beer brewed in Scotland was stronger than that. These are William Younger's shilling Ales from 1868:

50/- Ale 1040
60/- Ale 1047
80/- Ale 1068
100/- Ale 1076
120/- Ale 1088
140/- Ale 1102
160/- Ale 1116

Parti-gyling. Why does everyone get it so wrong? Younger's brewed most of their beers entire gyle, including the really strong ones. They didn't just use the first runnings. And they certainly didn't blend after fermentation. Blending beer from two different mashes? Nope, didn't do that either.

The strongest beers called Scotch Ale or Wee Heavy? Wee Heavy doesn't appear until the 20th century. The original - Fowler's Wee Heavy - was actually called 12 Guinea Ale. That still appeared on the labels in the 1960's. Wee just refers to the bottle size, a nip. Heavy just means strong. The strongest may have been called Scotch Ale in England, in Scotland they were sold as Strong Ale. Or 6, 8, 10 or 12 Guinea Ale.

The mid-range beers called "Export"? No, totally wrong. It's the Pale Ales that were called that, totally, totally different type of beer. Export does appear in the 19th century, but only really came into common use in the 20th. 70/- has never been called Export. In the second half of the 20th century it was called Heavy.

Twopenny? Does he have any idea what twopenny is? It's a very old Scottish type that was give a special status by the act of Union. It existed as a separate tax category until 1802. In its final days the tax was 3s 4d per barrel, while Strong Ale was 10/- and small Beer 1s 4d. So it was probably about 1045º. The name comes from the price per Scottish pint, which was about 4 English pints. Nothing to do with 60/-. It's easy enough to work out the retail price:

2d for a Scottish pint = 4d per gallon (or a third of a shilling)
54 (the number of gallons in a hogshead) / 3 = 18 shillings retail per hogshead

How could a hogshead that retailed for 18 shillings have a wholesale price of 60 shillings?

That last lot of shilling ales, which period are they supposed to come from? It isn't clear. I think he means now. It which case he got 80/- right. Then again, he doesn't say that it's a type of Pale Ale. And the top of the gravity range is too high. He calls Twopenny, a  type of beer that hasn't existed for 200 years, 60/-. It's Light. Even the BJCP gets that right. Calling Strong Ale 90/- only dates to post-WW II. Between the wars 90/- was a relatively low-gravity (about 1035º), bottled Pale Ale. As I said before, Wee Heavy was a 12 Guinea Ale.

Distinguishing different strengths by a shilling designation wasn't uniquely Scottish. Some English brewers - Brakspear is an example - used it in the early 19th century, too.

One final point.The shilling system was used for all different types of beer. There are 54/- Stouts, 54/- and 60/- Milds,

"a traditional, pre-decimal, British currency denomination" that's the only true statement I can find in that article. Oh, and that /- is a way of denoting a shilling. Utter, utter drivel.

I told you had something even worse

I did, didn't I? The excerpts below contain the most egregious error that's flapped in front of my eyes. See if you can guess what it is.

I'm sure you can guess the source. Good old Horst Dornbusch, man of a million unfounded claims.

"Pale ale originated in England about two hundred years ago when some brewers started to use cleaner, but more expensive, coke  — instead of coal or wood — to dry their malted barley. The higher-priced grain led to higher-priced brews. This helped to foster the British notion that pale beers are for the upper classes, while darker beers are for the toiling masses. Most of this new ale came from just one city — Burton-on-Trent.

British breweries have only been maintaining reliable brewing records since the beginning of the twentieth century, so we do not have the recipe of the original brew. From the perspective of authenticity, we have only a few vague hints as to what the original pale ale might have looked or tasted like. It ought not to come as a surprise, therefore, that pale ale has one of the broadest style definitions you can find in the world of brewing.

Early English beers brewed with these paler grains were mostly amber to copper in color. Today we might not even consider them pale, because we compare them to modern beers such as the golden-blond Pilsners, the brilliant Munich helles, and even American light lagers. By the standards of the staple brown ales and porters of two hundred years ago, however, these new beers were pale indeed."

Not too awful yet. Except for paragraph two, obviously. Unless all my archive visits have been some fantastic and fantastically-detailed dream. Naah. I went down the pub after every visit. They were always open and I can remember tasting the beer. Couldn't have been a dream. The street was even the same after I came out of the pub. Conclusive evidence against the dream theory.

What else has he got wrong? That there weren't any Brown Ales in the early 19th century. And that Mild - a working man's drink if ever there was one -was pale at the time. By 1800 pale malt was cheaper to brew with than other base malts. That's why Porter grists were changed to be mostly pale malt.

"Originally, in cask-conditioned “real” pale ales, the turbidity from the yeast was taken out of the drink with various finings. But in regular “running” beer — as draft beer was often called then — this was not the case. It was not until the invention of beer filtration in 1878 that pale ales could sparkle, too."

I'm not even sure what that means. What the hell were 'cask-conditioned “real” pale ales'? If he's saying what I think he is, he's got it arse about tit. I wouldn't trust that date for the introduction of filtration, either. The idea of Stock Pale Ales was that the long maturation allowed them to drop bright without fining. Read any description of Bass or Allsopp Pale Ale and they go on about how wonderfully pale and bright it is.

"The name “pale ale” is not without ambiguity, or even confusion. Initially, the beer was known as India Pale Ale (IPA) because it was being made mostly for shipment to the administrators, merchants and soldiers of the British Empire in India. This beer faced a six-week long, often rough, ocean voyage through the tropics and around the tip of Africa. To ensure that the beer would survive the trip without spoiling, Burton brewers made it almost twice as strong and twice as bitter as the standard ales of the day."

He's not the only one to claim that. Doesn't make it right, though.

"This India Pale Ale acquired a domestic British market only by accident when, after a shipwreck off Liverpool in 1827, casks of IPA were salvaged and sold for local consumption. Once the Liverpudlians had tasted the hoppy export ale, they clamored for more and the Burton brewers obliged. Because of the beer’s bittering levels, it became known domestically as “bitter.” However, because plenty of alcohol as a preservative was no longer necessary on the short transport routes for domestic sales, Burton brewers made their bitter in three strengths. They brewed an ordinary bitter (with an average OG in the mid-1.030s), a best bitter (with an average OG in the mid-1.040s), and a strong bitter (with an average OG in the mid-1.050s). The strong bitter also became known as special or extra-special bitter (ESB). As beer bottles entered the British market from the 1860s onward, the bottled bitters came to once again be called pale ales to distinguish them from the bitters in casks. At this time, however, the “India” prefix was dropped."

Domestic IPA was in reality higher gravity than the ones sent to India. I'll make no other comment. Except to point out the irony in this being the next sentence in the original:

"As brewers, we may be comfortable with the thought that styles are something fixed and lasting. But in reality, styles are born as an expression of their times and tend to change with them, sometimes even radically."

How true.

To top it all off, there's this brilliant recipe:

"British Nineteenth-Century Best Bitter
(5-gallon, all grain)
OG = 1.044
FG = 1.010
SRM = 11–13
IBU = 30  

Ingredients

    7.0 lbs. two-row pale ale malt (3° L)
    1.0 lb. crystal malt (40° L)
    6.75 AAU East Kent Goldings hops (bittering)
        (1.35 oz. of 5% alpha acid)
    0.5 oz. Fuggles hops (flavor)
    0.5 oz. East Kent Goldings (aroma)
    Wyeast 1028 (London Ale) or White Labs WLP026 (Premium Bitter Ale) yeast
    0.75 cup corn sugar (for bottling)"

You can read the whole article here:

http://www.byo.com/stories/beer-styles/article/indices/11-beer-styles/1239-pale-ale-style-profile

I rest my case.

Horst Dornbusch on Pilsner Urquell

A Zymurgy article by Horst Dornbusch describing the origins of Pilsner Urquell.

"Modern, in Groll's days, meant that the malt had to be finished the new-fangled English way, by drying it in an indirect-fired kiln, instead of a traditional, direct-fired, smoky one. This revolutionary method had been patented by Daniel Wheeler in 1817 as "an Improved Method of Drying and Preparing Malt." This was the first industrial kiln that allowed brewers to make clean-tasting malt predictably of any color, including pale."

"Finally, he [Groll] fermented the wort, not as an ale, but with bottom-fermenting yeast that had apparently been smuggled into Bohemia by an itinerant Bavarian monk. This subterfuge was necessary because the Bavarian government had slapped a ban on all yeast shipments beyond its borders in an effort to safeguard Bavaria's growing beer exports."

How many mistakes can you spot in those two paragraphs?



Thanks to Thomas Barnes for passing this on.

A titbit of Dornbusch bullshit

Reading through Horst Dornbusch's German Beer Institute website is enough to cause me apoplexy. There's so much that's distorted, misinterpreted or just factually wrong.

"In 1843, only one year after the first Pilsner Urquell was brewed, the Bohemian chemist Carl Joseph Napoleon Balling invented the hydrometer."
http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/history.html

Balling did not invent the hydrometer. Richardson, who's credited with being the first to use a hydrometer to measure the gravity of beer in the 1780's, did not invent the hydrometer. The instrument had been around for centuries and had been used by distillers since at least the 17th century.

Even more Dornbusch bullshit

Thanks to Barm for pointing this one out to me. It's so stunningly wrong, I can't let it go.

"Mumme or Broyhan beer, so-named after Cord Broyhan, a native Hanoverian brewmaster, is a well-hopped, light brown, medieval ale, made from about one-third wheat and two-thirds barley. Also known as Keutbier, it became, for a couple of centuries, the most widely distributed style in north Germany. In the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries Hamburg emerged as a major international brewing center, shipping its beers to wherever sailing ships would call. The brew industry employed almost half of Hamburg's wage-earning population, and it was in one of Hamburg's 531 breweries that Cord Broyhan learned the secrets of beer-making. When he returned to Hanover, in 1526, he became a very successful bewery entrepreneur. Soon others in Hanover followed Cord's lead and opened up competing breweries. In 1609, the city council of Hanover began to regulate the quality and brew techniques of the local Mumme beer, limiting the number of brewer burghers to 317, combining all of them into one guild, and incorporating the guild as a company. The Guild brewery still exists today and is the oldest enterprise in Hannover. It is now part of the Belgian InBev brewing concern.

Though no longer brewed today, Mumme's historical significance is its relationship to the other northern German beer styles. As an ale, it is a distant relative of the modern Altbier, and has influenced the flavor and brewing techniques of such beer styles as Berliner Weisse, Leipziger Gose and Belgian Wit/bière blanche."
http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/Mumme.html

He manages to confuse three totally different styles of beer. What did Mumme, Broyhan and Keut have in common? They were all brewed in North Germany. That's where the similarities end.

Let's start at the beginning. The first sentence alone has half a dozen errors:

1. Mumme and Broyhan are not the same thing
2. Cord Broyhan was from Stöcken, learnt brewing in Hamburg then moved to Hannover
3. Broyhan was lightly-hopped
4. It wasn't brown, but pale
5. It wasn't medieval - it was first brewed in the 1500's
6. It didn't necessarily contain wheat

Keut (or Koyt) is yet a third style of beer. That is much older, dating back to at least the early 15th century. It's a pre-hop beer that was orininally flavoured with gruit. In Holland Jopen brew a rather good Koyt, based on a 15th century Dutch recipe.

Then there's the differences between Broyhan and Mumme. Broyhan was a fairly low-gravity, low-alcohol beer that's often quoted as the direct ancestor of Berliner Weisse. Mumme was a beer with a massive OG - over 1200 - and an incredibly low degree of attenuation. It's hard to think of two more dissimilar beers. Not sure whether to believe me? Here are some numbers:

Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	Acidity	FG	OG	ABV	Atten-uation
1850	Unknown, Halberstadt	Halberstädter Breyhan	Broyhan	1.29	1012.69	1034.67	2.84	62.59%
1884	Hannover, Städtisch	Einfacher Broyhan	Broyhan	0.158	1022.54	1031.43	1.03	27.67%
1884	Hannover, Städtisch	Doppelter Broyhan	Broyhan	0.06	1043.60	1053.37	1.20	17.55%
1878	Braunschweig	Mumme	Mumme		1202.57	1257.04	4.50	18.43%
1890	Unknown	Braunschweiger Mumme	Mumme		1236.8	1295.1	2.90	19.76%
1850	Unknown, Braunschweig	Mumme	Mumme		1204.14	1224.29	2.52	7.79%
1870	Unknown, Braunschweig	Braunschweiger Mumme	Mumme		1231	1266.4	4.50	13.29%
Sources: Wahl & Henius, pages 823-830 “Archive der Pharmacie”, 1855, pages 216-217 Handwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie by Justus Liebig, Johann Christian Poggendorff, Friedrich Wöhler, 1858, page 1038 "Chemie der menschlichen Nahrungs- und Genussmittel" by Joseph König, 1879, pages 147 - 158 "Handbuch der chemischen technologie" by Otto Dammer, Rudolf Kaiser, 1896, pages 696-697

Broyhan was light in colour, body and alcohol. Mumme was "thick, strong, and of a dark brown colour". More like treacle than beer. It's like saying Light Mild and Imperial Stout are the same thing. That bad. Oh yes, Mumme is from Braunschweig and Broyhan from Hannover. Two different towns. Close to each other, yes, but until the late 19th century in different countries.

I might let off a non-German speaker for coming up with such utter rubbish. But Dornbusch is German and can read the sources I've used more easily than me. He has no excuse.

While I've got him down on the floor, I may as well give Horst a few extra kicks in the nuts.

There's the pretentious (and misleading) name of his website: The German Beer Institute. It's not an Institute. It's his personal self-promotion page. Bit of a difference. Then there's the ludicrous claims he makes on its front page "the first and only comprehensive, authoritative information resource for English-speaking fans of German beer." You have to laugh at that.

Finally there's the irritating way he keeps using the word "Ale" to describe extinct German top-fermenting styles. But what would you expect from such an utter twat?

More Dornbusch bullshit

Lachlan has found some more fantasy beer stylings from Horst Dornbusch. Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

First Porter:

"Robust Porter - Near the end of Queen Victoria's long reign, as the 19th century was coming to a close, the Robust Porter split off from the standard London or Brown Porter. The Porter, long a brew of working class lineage and favored by the rough, hearty and robust strand of the British social fabric, seemed to be just a touch too rough for the more gentile denizens of refined Victorian society. A gentleman might want his dark ale, but it had to me a bit more upscale. Strange then that the upper-crust Porter that evolved came to be known as "robust," a term more workman- than gentleman-like!"

I wonder when the term "Robust Porter" was first coined? Was it Victoria's reign? Or was it Elizabeth II"s? I'd ask what his evidence is for such ludicrous claims. But that would be a waste of time., Because there isn't any.

"Porter brewing reached its peak production volume in London in the 1820s, by which time it had become arguably the first mass-produced commercial beer. There was no brewery of note that didn’t depend on porter sales for its prosperity. Ironically, brown or standard porter reached its zenith at just about the same time when a newly-patented indirect-heat kilning technology made the reliable production of very pale, as well as very dark, malts possible, thus hastening the phase-out of the traditional, floor-malted brown malts. As brown-malt mashes fell out of favor in the brew houses of London, so did brown-malt based porters in the city’s pubs. Eventually, near the end of Queen Victoria’s long reign, the once-dominant standard porter “represented only one quarter of London’s beer consumption,” according to porter expert Terry Foster (see his book Porter, Brewers Publication 1992). It was during this technology-induced beer transformation of the standard porter that the robust porter — not unlike the stout in earlier times — split off from the fading original porter.

Diversification of the porter style into various sub-styles in the 19th century, however, could not save the brew. In the early 20th century, as beer drinkers switched more and more to pale ales, porters — robust or not — disappeared almost entirely from the beer menu."
Horst Dornbusch.
http://www.byo.com/stories/beer-styles/article/indices/11-beer-styles/1358-robust-porter-style-profile

Brown malt fell out of favour with London brewers in the 19th century? No it effing didn't. They were still using it in the 1970's. What a twat. "Robust Porter" splitting away from "standard Porter"? More fantasy.

"Mild Ale - The roots of mild ale, however, date back to well before the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, perhaps to as early as the 16th century, when milder, weaker versions of the regular brown ale was the drink of the "fairer" sex and of the servants. Brew-technically, mild ale was often made from the final runnings of a partigyle brew."

Yet another wannabe beer historian who doesn't realise that Mild Ale used to be a pale beer. And not weak. He clearly knows fuck all about the history of British beer. He's paid to write this stuff? I'm glad I'm an amateur.

It's a crime that in the 21st century a supposed renowned beer writer can come up with such total drivel.

Horst Dornbusch's Ultimate Almanac

Lachlan from Australia has submitted a couple of pieces of fantasy beer history that would shame even Roger Protz.

They are taken from 'The Ultimate Almanac of World Beer Recipes" by Horst Dornbusch.

Barley Wine: Its modern name, however, evolved only in the early 20th century,when the large commercial breweries in Britain started to move into big-ale brewing.

Best Bitter: Perhaps the first truly hop-bitter English ale was the India Pale Ale (IPA), first brewed in the 1790s in London and later in Burton-on-Trent... In the1830s, the large English breweries adopted the IPA style also for the domestic market, for which they reduced its hop loading, renamed it "Bitter", and offered it in three strengths: "Bitter" at roughly 9°P... "Best Bitter" a roughly 11°P..."Extra Special Bitter" (ESB), a strong Bitter at roughly 13°P - 14°P... Starting in the 1860s, bottled Bitters entered the British market, and they came to be called"Pale Ales" (without the prefix "India"), while only Bitters served in casks in pubs kept their traditional name.

Brown Ale, Northern English: ...the hallowed, but now mass-produced Newcastle Brown Ale and the craft-brewed Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale.

Brown Ale, Southern English: The lower-gravity Browns eventually evolved into Milds; the darker ones, into Stouts and Porters; and the hoppier ones, into IPAs, Bitters and Pale Ales.

Brown Ale evolved into Bitter? I want some of whatever Horst has been taking. This stuff goes beyond fantasy history and enters the truly surreal.

Yes, this is the same Horst Dornbusch who's often quoted as an expert. Yeah, right.

It's shame Lachlan was a little late for the competition. All the quotes above would have been certain winners.

I've just done a little search and found this enthusiastic blurb about the book:

"The Ultimate Almanac is a unique collection of 101 of the world’s classic, most important, and most interesting beer recipes, and an authoritative repository of the world’s beer culture. It is a surrogate of mankind’s brewing past, expertly adapted for use by modern brewers in the present. It is a product of the synergistic collaboration of four parties, the author and the three sponsors, each world experts in their fields. To the best of our knowledge there has never been a work like this, in any language! We hope this book will become the practical reference guide and an indispensable source of information for serious brewers all over the world – a tome to be kept handy in any brew house anywhere!"
http://www.kaspar-schulz.com/index.php?article_id=117&clang=1

"authoritative repository of the world’s beer culture" - you have to laugh, don't you? The book is a snip at just $129.00 + $20.00 shipping. I've already ordered my copy.